Nonsense on two counts: first, voting in an election does not constitute a "revolution" - even as rhetoric, that is just stupid hyperbole; second, the assertion that Taiwan is comparable to Libya, Tunisia or Egypt is monstrously out of proportion - as a weekly reading of Michael J. Totten would hammer home.

In my (current*) view, Taiwanese reform ought to begin outside the purview of the electoral mechanism by a strategic mixture of tactics: principled challenges to egregious State powers (e.g. land "expropriation") with the aim that such be repudiated; calls for a program of legislative repeal beginning with those laws which most restrict freedom in the areas of labour, health and education; initiatives to allow greater public involvement with and direct support for the military, thus diluting the mediating function of whichever (possibly infiltrated and compromised) Party happens to be in Government. Those are merely brief examples - the question of how best to undertake and direct a strategy of depoliticizing reform demands far more thought and criticism than can be mustered in a single, brief blog post.

*Liable to change on further reflection and criticism; I have written on this before, and will likely continue to do so from time to time. I have yet to see anyone else write imaginatively on political reform in Taiwan outside of re-electing the lame and largely irrelevant DPP.

14 comments:

Well I think it's worth being more precise here: it's the dilemma of a two-party based electoral mechanism, which is just one feature of "democracy", or at least of "Liberal democracy"; not only are other constitutional arrangements conceivable which would make use of the electoral mechanism (e.g. a limited member review council minus both parties and legislature), but the electoral mechanism itself is not, in my opinion (and contrary to the Leftists), the most important aspect of a democracy.

My only point here is that the common conflation of "democracy" with two party elections is a mistake I think should get more exposure (I'm not accusing you of this Nathan, I'm just pointing to the value of being more precise, and thereby of trying to broaden horizons).

I agree, Mike. That's why I made the "South Park" reference, above. Democracy to me, at base, is an enormous sham (or at least an enormous myth), if only because the idea of popular sovereignty would stop working the minute not a single person voted (I think I wrote this someplace else), which makes voting itself a Prisoners' Dilemma. Institutionalizing a two-party system only heightens this, as the "If I don't vote for this guy, someone is sure to vote for the other guy" mentality comes into play, thus making voting for one "a lesser of two evils." If people--every single person--would stop voting out of protest, however, the government would not cease to function. Thus, the choice is essentially between a douche and a turd sandwich, since we're going to get one of them anyway, vote or no vote.

Democracy seems to move in the direction of a two-party system, however, simply because many small parties all competing is less efficient (isn't that one of the major reasons why most Western countries are trying to eliminate "inefficient" small businesses?). I'm pessimistic about democracy--in all its forms. But perhaps you could give me some insight on your ideas.

I think also Taiwan politics are based to a large extent on identity issues--much to my chagrin (as I think identity should be internalized and a source of inward pride, not externalized and, thus, politicized). So, for many who do not consider themselves Chinese (in the nationalist sense or identity sense), this is one of the only major political groups with which they are able to identify--if only because it is not "Chinese." There's also a degree of respect and appreciation for some of the things the "old guard" went through as well, but the "old guard" didn't bring democracy to Taiwan. A regime being undermined from outside as well as from within plus domestic unrest (although this domestic unrest did not occur overnight, which has led me to believe that if the transition to democracy were fully or even mostly driven by domestic protest, it would have happened much earlier) taking advantage of an opportunity led to democratization--which I also see as only partial and unfinished. The bureaucracy, constitution, and police forces as well as the military are still primarily leftovers from the party-state system and are extremely pro- one group only. Most analysts regard the "gridlock" of the Chen Shui-bian years as coming exclusively from the blue legislature, but a good chunk of the conflict took place within the Executive Yuan itself, with lower level bureaucrats unwilling to cooperate. I see Chen's presidency as a one of constant encirclement and embattlement--a siege mentality, if you will--which is one reason I think he became more vocal and confrontational later on. That does not explain the corruption, however, although I think what took place during 8 years of DPP rule pales in comparison to the decades upon decades of KMT corruption on China and Taiwan.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that although I agree with you that there has been little creativity in dealing with actual issues and problems, I can understand to some point why this would be. Part is myth--aren't we all subjected to this?-- part is hope (which I think is based on myth), and part is identity politics, of which there appear to be only two camps.

"Democracy seems to move in the direction of a two-party system, however, simply because many small parties all competing is less efficient..."

Well democracy doesn't "move" anywhere absent context, but the two party system is the most common form in which electoral competition has been concentrated. In the U.S. this springs directly from the post-revolutionary dispute between the pro-federalists (Hamilton) and anti-federalists (Jefferson). Many other forms of electoral competition are conceivable, but the historical rise of organized political parties may simply be a consequence of the ratio between the power of the State and the geographical range over which that power is to be extended: under such conditions, parties are merely an "efficient" organizing vehicle for those seeking election to the administration of the State. Proportional representation may be less "efficient" from the perspective of some politicians but it first requires a relative balance of power among various parties from which a constitutional decision in favour of PR can be reached.

"...(isn't that one of the major reasons why most Western countries are trying to eliminate "inefficient" small businesses?)..."

No! Small businesses are often destroyed, but usually by market competition or lack of market demand (though this may be aggravated by various forms of State interference). And in any case, a government that deliberately set out to destroy all such "inefficient" small businesses would effectively have committed itself to destroying the market economy on which it is parasitic.

"I'm pessimistic about democracy--in all its forms. But perhaps you could give me some insight on your ideas."

Well that leads directly to the anarchist-minarchist debate, i.e. whether to abolish the State entirely or whether to maintain a minimal State. I don't have time to go into this now, and better people than me have written extensively on this elsewhere. I tend toward anarchy, but I regard the question as marginally relevant now, because whichever side you come down on, political strategy and tactics are likely to be very similar (there are objections to this conclusion from the anarchists concerning integrity to principle and the nature and source of the problems, both of which I think carry some weight.

I'm on my way out the door as well, but I just thought I'd offer a couple thoughts (perhaps you've considered them yourself as well):

1) Coming from the United States myself, I certainly see the connection between Federalist and Anti-Federalist thought in US politics. However, and with the "reform" of Taiwan's electoral system a few years back, what I see today in democratic politics is consolidation and annexation, and what I mean by that is, sure, you may have smaller parties here and there, fringe groups and whatnot, and people who just don't give a shit, but ultimately what the major parties--usually two, in the case of the United States and Taiwan--try to frame the debate in such a way that they address all that is allowed to be addressed and in a manner in which only they can address it. In such a situation, a Collectivist-Anarchist probably votes Democrat because he's got essentially no other choice, while a Libertarian (US-style) votes Republican more often than not because his party doesn't stand a real chance in hell. Everyone is unhappy, essentially, but the parties frame everything. Meander outside the allowable debate, and you become an "extremist." This is what I mean by movement--perhaps I should have said push?

2) I'm familiar with the Friedmanns, Bakhunins, Marxs, Diamonds, Scumpeters, Nozicks, Rothbards, etc. I'd like to know your thoughts on this topic if you're willing to express them and when (and if) you have time. I come here to learn from others as well--in fact, mostly. (And that's not saying that the above names I've written are "better people than [you]."

"...Taiwan politics are based to a large extent on identity issues..."

Collective identity - which is consequent to the prevailing nonsense of nationalism and Statism elsewhere in the world wherever Taiwanese people turn their gaze. I would put it something like this: Taiwanese people have never been in a position to establish a State with real international respect, yet at the same time are fixated on a collective, nation-state based identity which no other State will recognize - hence their "identity issues". The PRC and KMT are attempting to engineer this fixation on collective identity one way, whilst the DPP are attempting to re-engineer it in another way - whereas I'd like to see Taiwanese outgrow it and realize their intrinsic individuality.

"..although I agree with you that there has been little creativity in dealing with actual issues and problems, I can understand to some point why this would be..."

Sure, but look: isn't that precisely what is necessary now if Taiwan is not to become even more disfigured by increasing government rule - whether from China or from within Taiwan itself? For myself I have no sympathetic understanding to offer the pan-green types. I have only criticism, and I say this will serve them much better (I have no time for the "old guard" and if I did, they could have sympathy since they aren't relevant any more). There is an extreme paucity of intellectual leadership here - and I include myself in that: my littlescribblings on strategy and tactics are barely even a scratch on the surface of the problem of what to do.

"Part is myth--aren't we all subjected to this?-- part is hope (which I think is based on myth)..."

Myths can be thrown off easily given rational criticism, which Chinese culture doesn't exactly always celebrate, and any hope based on myth is false. It is just as important (if not more so) to argue and criticize and encourage this in others than it is to call for political reform. Political reforms in the direction of greater individual freedom simply cannot succeed in the absence of a broader culture in which rational criticism (and particularly, of the parrhesic variety) is respected and celebrated. There are somewhat similar examples of this to be found in historical Chinese culture (e.g. in the Spring & Autumn annals), but I'm not too sure of their importance for political reform today.

"...the major parties--usually two... try to frame the debate in such a way that they address all that is allowed to be addressed and in a manner in which only they can address it."

Of course. That is one reason why it is imperative to bypass them and work outside of the electoral system (as MLK did for instance).

"...Collectivist-Anarchist..."

This concept seems to me a contradiction in terms - if you are a "collectivist" you necessarily endorse some form of coercion, no? (Otherwise how are a people to be "collected" together into a political unit?) And if you endorse coercion, then there must be some agent invested with the political authority to coerce, no? And if there is such an "authoritative agent" (or several such governing a territory), then it's not clear to me that we're dealing with "anarchy" anymore. I've been meaning for some time to do a post on Chomsky's "socialist libertarianism"... I'll get around to it eventually.

"...a Libertarian (US-style) votes Republican more often than not because his party doesn't stand a real chance in hell..."

I have very little (if any) time for the U.S. libertarian party - and neither I suspect does anyone else (including probably most other libertarians). Frank Chodorov once said to them: "Your problem is that you're trying to clean up the whorehouse, but keep the business."

"I don't have time to go into this now, and better people than me have written extensively on this elsewhere."

Which refers to

"I'm pessimistic about democracy--in all its forms. But perhaps you could give me some insight on your ideas."

To which you responded

"Well that leads directly to the anarchist-minarchist debate, i.e. whether to abolish the State entirely or whether to maintain a minimal State."

Yep, I think it is impossible for collectivists to be anarchists; that didn't stop Bakhunin, for example, of being--what was it?--a "Communist Anarchist" or some ridiculous thing. I didn't say I was one; I find the whole concept of taking authority away from a state--a collective in its own right--and then giving it to some "non-state" collective quite . . . what's the right term? . . . fucking moronic and utterly not anarchist.

"That was tried against MLK - didn't work. The man had too much class."

Yep, he just got assassinated. That's all that "worked," evidently. I guess that goes to show what having "too much class" to not be effectively labeled an extremist gets one.

I've no respect for American Libertarians either. Did I write that I no longer vote? That's one of many reasons. I "bypass them" by not voting (well, and a lot of other stuff), but I still have to deal with their damned existence.

By the way, I'm OK with being an extremist. I don't particularly like the fact that extremism now is evidently equated with being a terrorist, but I suppose we all have labels, some we like and others we don't especially fancy.

On anarchy-minarchy... there are at least two putative problems for the anarchist position and two (or really just one) for the minarchist position.

Anarchy:

{1} Given market competition in PDAs (private defense agencies), and courts of law, what is there to ensure common adherence among these courts and PDAs to libertarian precepts such as the non-aggression principle? In other words, how to ensure the "meta-stability" of an anarchist society?

{2} How would an anarchist society deal with common threats such as assault by foreign governments and contagious disease?

Minarchy:

{1} How do you design a limited State which stays limited over time in frustration of the aims of political sociopaths? That was the intention of the U.S. "founders" (even Hamilton) in designing a Federal State restricted by constitutional design and rules - hasn't worked out that way.

{2} Once the principle is granted that coercion may be rightfully employed by a minimal State, on what rational basis can this limited grant be made immune to mission creep? (This is really just a further specification of the first problem for a minarchist).

There are very intelligent answers to these questions for each position. However, I think neither position can dispense with considerations of culture and psychology: focusing purely on alterations to the structure of political economy only seems to be capable of producing incomplete answers.

On libertarian writers, I think there is a tendency to react viciously to Ayn Rand - (e.g. "Randroids") a tendency which I think is often overdone, because her contribution (in particular her writing on epistemology), whatever her flaws, was immense. Similarly there is an enormous intellectual debt to Ludwig Von Mises - in particular for his theory of the business cycle and his "praxeological" method.

There are also other bloggers elsewhere, particularly in the U.S. and in England who write very intelligently on these and related questions. Some examples:

There are so many more such people from whom I learned much and they're not difficult to find. One of the best ways of learning, for me, was getting my arse kicked in debate - I might not have admitted defeat at the time, but I wasn't able to forget it without checking my premises and re-evaluating my position first.

Thanks for the references, Mike. I'm familiar with several of the writers you've mentioned--read some Rand (who hasn't?) and von Mises and have heard of Long and Beck. I'll have to look into the others.

I wouldn't consider myself an anarchist per se, at least as far as that term is political. My own ideas related to these have everything to do with personal freedom to make choices and accept personal responsibility for the consequences of those choices than they have to do with politics. For example, I have no problem with individuals joining some form of collective so long as they are not forced to join and can come and go as they wish (although most collectivists cringe at that). I also have no problem with a man choosing to spend his life on a mountain top so long as it does not come at my expense. That's a bit simplistic, and I've had to tone it down a little what with being married into a Taiwanese family and all, but it never goes away (if you know what I mean).

I'm a bit outmatched myself in our discussions, as these are areas in which you are better versed than I. I've flirted in my life with ideologies of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians (the American style, which I agree is a joke), Free-market Anarchism, even different socialist sects at one point when I was younger (I was once drawn to Bakhunin, Proudhon, and admit I did become fascinated with Marx and Engels, and still am to some degree, although it's not a positive fascination anymore). Yes, I have my issues with Minarchists (mentioned before, somewhere) and Anarchists in general, several of which you've mentioned (albeit far more eloquently than I have or probably can).

I have to admit my shortcomings in this discussion; I seem not to possess the background or technical vocabulary necessary to keep up. My field of study often keeps me from delving too deeply into things I overlooked when younger and less constrained. Looks like I'll be heading to the library. Please do drop a line if you come across any other sources you feel may be of interest; I do keep to the Mill motto of knowing more than just one's own side to a case, however, so even if you run across something you think might counter my own understandings and whatnot, do still let me know. (Note: I'm just asking for this if you come come across something; certainly not asking you to scour.)